DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10, 21-29, and 101 remain for examination. The amendment filed 6/24/26 amended claims 1 & 21; cancelled claim 30; and added claim 101.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/24/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
Without agreeing with the rejection, and solely to expedite prosecution, Applicant has amended independent claims 1 and 21, without prejudice or disclaimer. Starner fails to teach, suggest, or disclose, inter alia "transmitting the biometric data to a mobile device associated with the user profile, wherein the biometric data is caused to be compared by the mobile device with preauthorized biometric data associated with the user profile that is stored on the mobile device" as recited in claim 1, as amended.
Starner describes a system for using biometric authentication as an alternative to traditional passwords on a wearable computing device by sending biometric data from the computing device to a web server or authentication server to find a match. See, e.g., Starner, IT [0005], [0021, [0024, and [0078]. Starner further describes "the authentication server may then access the stored biometric data and compare the stored biometric data to the decrypted biometric data" to determine if there is a match. See Starner, T [0088]. However, sending authentication data to a separate, remote server for further processing and matching is different from, e.g., localized authentication and/or "transmitting the biometric data to a mobile device wherein the biometric data is caused to be compared by the mobile device with preauthorized biometric data that is stored on the mobile device." Therefore, Starner fails to teach, suggest, or disclose Applicant's claimed subject matter.
Examiner disagrees. Upon further consideration and review of the reference, Starner discloses the following at paragraph 0085 (emphasis Examiner’s):
[0085] At block 308, the HMD sends the authentication message to an authentication server for verification of the authentication information, where verification of the authentication information allows access to the protected information via the second computing device. The authentication server may be one or more computing devices separate from the HMD and the second computing device. In some embodiments, the second computing device may function as the authentication server and verify the authentication information.
Starner defines the term “second computing device” earlier at paragraph 0067 (emphasis Examiner’s):
[0067] FIGS. 3A and 3B show example methods 300A and 300B, according to example embodiments. In particular, methods 300A and 300B may help a first computing device use a machine-readable code displayed on a second computing device to facilitate secure access to protected information via use of biometric data. The first computing device may be an HMD, as described below; however, the first computing device can also be another computing device, such as a mobile phone, tablet computer, laptop computer, another type of wearable computing device, or the like. The second computing device may also be a mobile phone, tablet computer, laptop computer, desktop computer, another HMD or wearable computing device, or the like.
Thus, the Examiner submits that at least some embodiments of Starner’s invention explicitly disclose a mobile device (such as a smartphone or tablet) that acts as the authentication server which receives the biometric data from the HMD, verifies the biometric data, and returns the decision as to whether the user is authenticated back to the HMD just as cited in the amended claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 7-10, 21, 27-29, & 101 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Starner (U.S. Patent Publication 2014/0337634).
Regarding claims 1 and 21:
Starner discloses a method and system comprising: receiving, at a head-mounted-display (HMD), a request for multi-factor authentication (MFA), wherein the HMD is associated with a user profile (paragraph 0021: “For example, when a wearer of a head-mountable device (HMD) wants to access secured information on a second computing device, such as via a password-protected webpage displayed on the wearer's laptop, an example method may be used by the HMD to log on to the webpage on the laptop. In particular, the HMD may detect a quick response (QR) code included on the login webpage that is displayed by the laptop.”; paragraph 0072, “In some embodiments, the machine-readable code may be a bar code. In one example, the bar code may be a two-dimensional bar code, such as a quick response (QR) code ... A request for the HMD (or other device) to provide authentication information may also be encoded in the bar code.”; see also paragraph 0069: “In some examples, the first and second viewable objects may be associated with an account, such as an email account, bank account, or user profile account on a computing device”; multifactor authentication at paragraph 0074: “In general, it should be understood that accessing the protected information may involve multiple authentication factors, such as multiple types of biometric data, password information, pass-token output, and/or other information”); collecting, with the HMD, biometric data (paragraph 0021: “In response, the HMD may obtain biometric data identifying the wearer.”; and paragraph 0076: “At block 304, the HMD acquires biometric data via one or more biometric sensors”); transmitting the biometric data to a mobile device associated with the user profile, wherein the biometric data is caused to be compared by the mobile device with preauthorized biometric data associated with the user profile that is stored on the mobile device (paragraph 0021: “The biometric data may then be sent to a web server that is associated with the QR code. The web server can then use the biometric data to identify the particular wearer and authorize access to secure content on the laptop, e.g., by logging the wearer into the webpage on the laptop”; and paragraphs 0085-0088, including ¶ 0085: “At block 308, the HMD sends the authentication message to an authentication server for verification of the authentication information, where verification of the authentication information allows access to the protected information via the second computing device… In some embodiments, the second computing device may function as the authentication server and verify the authentication information” and ¶0087: “In some embodiments, verification of the authentication information may include the authentication server (or other computing device, such as the HMD or the second computing device) making a determination of whether the biometric data substantially matches stored biometric data… The stored biometric data may be stored either locally at the HMD or remotely at another computing device, such as the second computing device or the authentication server associated with the authorization process described herein”; “second computing device” embodied as a mobile device at paragraph 0067); based at least in part on the comparison, receiving an authorization signal from the mobile device (paragraph 0088: “The authentication server may then access the stored biometric data and compare the stored biometric data to the decrypted biometric data. The authentication server may then send to the HMD information indicative of whether there was a match as a result of the comparison”); and authorizing access to the HMD or a function of the HMD based at least in part on the authorization signal (paragraph 0021: “The biometric data may then be sent to a web server that is associated with the QR code. The web server can then use the biometric data to identify the particular wearer and authorize access to secure content on the laptop, e.g., by logging the wearer into the webpage on the laptop”; and paragraph 0095: “If it is determined by the authentication server (or other computing device) that the biometric data substantially matches the stored biometric data, the method 300B continues from block 308 of method 300A at block 310, where the HMD receives information indicating that access to the protected information has been granted. For example, access to the protected information may be represented by the second computing device displaying the second viewable object associated with the first viewable object and including the protected information”).
Regarding claims 7 and 27: Starner further discloses comprising: generating a dynamic action instruction (the eye-scan prompt(s) of paragraphs 0062-0066, including but not limited to inter alia requiring the user to track a virtual object moving on the display [¶0062], tracking a stationary object on the display while requiring the user to move their head [¶0063] or requiring the user to make one or more hand gestures [¶0064]); generating for display the dynamic action instruction (Ibid); receiving input (Ibid); determining that the input corresponds to the dynamic action instruction (Ibid); and authorizing access to the HMD or the function of the HMD based at least in part on the authorization signal and the determination that the input corresponds to the dynamic action instruction (Ibid; see also paragraph 0095).
Regarding claims 8 and 28: Starner further discloses wherein: the dynamic action instruction is to tap a virtual icon with a mobile device (paragraph 0062; mobile devices at e.g. paragraphs 0025, 0028, & 0035); the input is a visual confirmation by the HMD (Ibid); and the determining that the input corresponds to the dynamic action instruction corresponds with the virtual icon being tapped with the mobile device (Ibid).
Regarding claims 9 and 29: Starner further discloses wherein: the dynamic action instruction is to perform a gesture in a virtual space visible to the HMD (paragraph 0064); the input is a visual confirmation by the HMD (Ibid); and the determining that the input corresponds to the dynamic action instruction corresponds with the gesture being performed in the virtual space visible to the HMD (Ibid).
Regarding claim 10: Starner further discloses wherein: the dynamic action instruction is to perform a spatial gesture with a mobile device (e.g. moving one’s head while wearing the HMD: paragraph 0063); the input is a confirmation from the mobile device (Ibid); and the determining that the input corresponds to the dynamic action instruction is the confirmation from the mobile device that the spatial gesture was performed with the mobile device (Ibid).
Regarding claim 101:
The rejection of claim 1 applies mutatis mutandis to claim 101, further noting that Starner’s authentication message from the HMD to the second computing device at paragraph 0085 is the “request for the mobile device to compare the transmitted data…” under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term in view of the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 2-6 and 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Starner as applied to claims 1 & 21 above, and further in view of Klug (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0082858).
Regarding claims 2 and 22: Starner further discloses wherein the biometric data comprises information from an inward-facing imaging system (paragraph 0042: “In particular, HMD 102 may include one or more inward-facing image capture devices and/or one or more other inward-facing sensors (not shown) that may be used to track eye movements and/or determine the direction of a wearer's gaze”). However, it is unclear from the Starner disclosure if his inward-facing imaging system captures 3D information; assuming arguendo that it does not, Starner at least suggests that alternative methods of eye data acquisition are permitted (paragraph 0025: “Other eye data and methods of eye data acquisition can be utilized, both known in the art and not yet known”). In that vein, Klug discloses a related invention for a head-mounted display capable of acquiring biometric information to authenticate its user, wherein its inward-facing imaging system explicitly gathers inter alia 3D information of the user’s eye(s) in order to biometrically authenticate them (Klug, paragraphs 0017-0018: “The resulting images can be used to track an eye or eyes, image the retina, reconstruct the eye shape in three dimensions, extract biometric information from the eye (e.g., iris identification), etc...A head mounted display (HMD) might use information about the state of the eyes of the wearer for a variety of purposes. For example, this information can be used for estimating the gaze direction of the wearer or for biometric identification.”; see also paragraphs 0060-0061). It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application for Starner to implement the 3D inward-facing imager to implement the biometric authentication aspect(s) of his invention using the imager disclosed by Klug, as Klug’s imager can be placed off to the side of the wearer rather than in front of them, which results in making the HMD easier to wear while also improving the depth of field of the imager (Klug, paragraph 0019: “The imager can be mounted so that it is facing forward (in the direction of the wearer's vision), rather than facing backward and directed at the eye. By disposing the imager nearer the ear of the wearer, the weight of the imager may also be nearer the ear, and the HMD may be easier to wear as compared to an HMD where the imager is backward facing and disposed nearer to the front of the HMD. Additionally, by placing the forward-facing imager near the wearer's temple, the distance from the wearer's eye to the imager is roughly twice as large as compared to a backward-facing imager disposed near the front of the HMD. Since the depth of field of an image is roughly proportional to this distance, the depth of field for the forward-facing imager is roughly twice as large as compared to a backward-facing imager. A larger depth of field for the imager can be advantageous for imaging the eye region of wearers having large or protruding noses, brow ridges, etc.”; see also paragraph 0062).
Regarding claims 3 and 23: The combination further discloses generating a biometric signature based at least in part on the 3D information from the inward-facing imaging system (Starner, paragraph 0076; Klug, paragraphs 0017-0018 & 0060-0061).
Regarding claims 4 and 24: The combination further discloses wherein the comparison comprises comparing the biometric signature based at least in part on the 3D information from the inward-facing imaging system to at least a portion of facial identification data stored on a mobile device (face recording at Starner, paragraph 0028), wherein the method comprises: determining a similarity score based at least in part on the comparison (Starner, paragraph 0087: “…making a determination of whether the biometric data substantially matches stored biometric data” [emphasis Examiner’s]; and the Hamming distance calculations at paragraphs 0090-0091); determining that the similarity score satisfies a predetermined condition (Starner, paragraphs 0090-0091, including: “In one embodiment, if such a comparison yields a Hamming Distance of 0.342 or greater, then the two records are considered to have come from two different subjects (e.g., users, wearers, etc.) and authorization is denied. If such a comparison yields a Hamming Distance of less than 0.342, then the two records are considered to have come from the same subject and authorization is granted”); and the authorizing the access to the HMD or the function of the HMD based at least in part on the authorization signal is further based at least in part on the similarity score satisfying the predetermined condition (Starner, Ibid).
Regarding claims 5 and 25: The combination further discloses wherein the collection of the 3D information from the inward-facing imaging system comprises: scanning at least a portion of a facial area using the inward-facing imaging system of the HMD to capture 3D eye data (Starner, paragraphs 0087-0091; and Klug, paragraphs 0017-0018 & 0060-0061; see also Klug, paragraph 0042: “The inward-facing imaging system 452 can be used to obtain images for use in determining the direction the user is looking (e.g., eye pose) or for biometric identification of the user (e.g., via iris identification)”); and generating the biometric signature based at least in part on the captured 3D eye data (Starner, Ibid; Klug, Ibid).
Regarding claims 6 and 26: The combination further discloses wherein the collection of the 3D information from the inward-facing imaging system comprises: scanning at least a portion of a facial area using the inward-facing imaging system of the HMD to capture partial facial data (Starner, paragraphs 0028 & 0087-0091 as discussed supra; Klug, paragraphs 0017-0018, 0042, & 0060-0061); and generating the biometric signature based at least in part on the captured partial facial data (Starner, Ibid; Klug, Ibid).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: U.S. Patent 11,044,249 (Mokhasi).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas A Gyorfi whose telephone number is (571)272-3849. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00am - 6:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at 571-270-3351. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
THOMAS A. GYORFI
Examiner
Art Unit 2435
/THOMAS A GYORFI/Examiner, Art Unit 2435 8/31/2026
/AMIR MEHRMANESH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2435
